Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Alexander
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David C. Alexander
WP:V. Long-term unsourced BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which mention this British officer. Additional sources, as always, welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.'[reply]
- Keep. General officers are usually considered to be notable. Who's Who confirms that he does exist and details his career, which answers the non-verifiability claim. Needs sourcing, but certainly should not be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added a couple of good sources, General officer who had a busy life after his service career ended. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Withdraw as nom based on sources added by Kernel Saunders. While Who's Who (at least many such books) are not considered reliable, the sources KS provided certainly are, and I never questioned notability, only verifiability. Thank you, Kernel! --joe deckertalk to me 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I think the British Who's Who can most certainly be considered reliable. One is invited to be included; one does not apply or pay for the privilege as in some vanity publications with a similar name. It's generally considered to be a reliable source in the UK. As to verifiability, if one can verify he existed and he was a general officer then one has established his "right" to be included on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, fair enough. In any case, we seem to have agreement now, and are just waiting for an admin to close (this is eligible for an early keep close) --joe deckertalk to me 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I think the British Who's Who can most certainly be considered reliable. One is invited to be included; one does not apply or pay for the privilege as in some vanity publications with a similar name. It's generally considered to be a reliable source in the UK. As to verifiability, if one can verify he existed and he was a general officer then one has established his "right" to be included on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Withdraw as nom based on sources added by Kernel Saunders. While Who's Who (at least many such books) are not considered reliable, the sources KS provided certainly are, and I never questioned notability, only verifiability. Thank you, Kernel! --joe deckertalk to me 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.